Assembly passes harbor fee increases in close vote

In a close vote the Wrangell City and Borough Assembly approved a new fee structure for the community’s harbors and dock facilities.

Already approved once on its first reading by the Assembly last month, the increases being put forward would institute a 10-percent increase to outside and inside dock face moorage, storage, port development fees and most boatyard rates. Those increases would also incorporate an anti-inflationary rise of two percent per year.

Transient moorage rates have been rescheduled, shifting from flat per-foot rates to a sliding scale based around 0-30, 31-55, 56-100 and 101-up feet ranges, with the per-foot rate increasing as the vessel gets larger. Reserved moorage rates have also been restructured, based around three ranges of 0-30, 31-55 and 56-plus feet.

Meeting Tuesday for the second and final reading of the new ordinance, Assembly members were hard-pressed to come to a decision over the measure.

“I really think with everything that’s coming up this is a bad time to increase the port fees,” said Mark Mitchell, opening the conversation. Citing a poor harvest last year and impending cuts to state-level funding, he felt it would be inopportune time for a hike.

“I started out this conversation pretty hard against any kind of increases,” began fellow member Julie Decker, echoing Mitchell. She went on to explain that over the next five years it would be important for the community's harbor services to remain competitive as economic impacts of the state's deeper spending cuts and new taxes were more fully felt.

“I know the Port Commission did a lot of work to get here,” Decker added. “If these rates were to be in place it would put Wrangell right about center,” relative to other communities' fee rates in Southeast.

She expressed opposition to proposed haul-out and boatyard rates, considering such a move to be premature in light of the state's economic situation. Decker did support the implementation of a two-percent annual increases for moorage rates, but felt their restructuring would disproportionately affect larger vessels, which would pay a considerably higher increase under the proposed fees.

“I disagree,” said Assembly member Dave Powell. Having attended a number of commission meetings, he pointed out its reasoning for the fee increases was to be able to better save for deferred maintenance costs. At current levels, the commission hypothesized rates would after 40 years scarcely match costs for half of another harbor facility on par with Shoemaker Bay or Reliance, much less the other facilities under the Harbor Department's purview.

“The rates have got to go up,” Powell said. “They have to go somewhere.” He cited the state of Shoemaker as an example of what would eventually happen to facilities, reaching a point beyond simple repair. “It’s not a maintainable harbor if you go out and look at it.”

Currently Shoemaker's harbor structure is about four decades old and slated for replacement, a $10.7 million project. Through savings and bonding, the city has been able to come up with more than half of that, but is currently waiting for the remaining funds to come through the Alaska Department of Transportation's facility replacement program. Insufficient levels were put into its budget for the coming cycle, bumping Wrangell's proposal and forcing it to reapply for next year.

“I agree both with Julie and Dave,” said Assembly member Becky Rooney. While she agreed moorage rates should go up, Rooney was reticent to support an increase in boatyard fees. Speaking with boat owning acquaintances, anecdotally she relayed they were of course not wanting to pay more for moorage, but understood the city's position.

“They know that it needs to be raised in order to maintain the system that we have,” Rooney concluded.

Assembly member Daniel Blake also agreed with Decker on the issue of charging for moorage based on vessel length, concerned it would affect fishermen the greatest. “Particularly when they’re bringing in so much money into the town,” he added.

“Most of this is on the backs of the fishermen,” Mitchell said.

Calling member of the commission and harbormaster Greg Meissner to the lectern, Rooney asked them to explain why they considered this to be an equitable policy.

Meissner responded the previous flat rate had effectively been charging smaller boats more per square footage than larger vessels, when at the same time costs for maintaining the facilities that serviced them was lower. The cost of maintaining a berth for a 20-foot boat was less, he reasoned, because it took up less space and the float structure facilitating it required fewer materials and was considerably cheaper than that needed to accommodate a 50- or a 72-foot vessel.

In the long haul, the larger, more expensive fingers were not paying for themselves.

“None of our six float systems pays for itself,” Meissner said. Adding to that the other harbor amenities and structures needing to be maintained, he said a rate increase was warranted.

City manager Jeff Jabusch added to that some historical context, explaining Wrangell's currently low rates were a holdover from years of state maintenance of its harbors.

“Prior to ten years ago, it wasn’t our responsibility,” he said.

After a lengthy discussion, Decker at last offered an amendment to strike the section increasing fees at The Marine Service Center from the new schedule.

“There’s a lot of unknown things coming. My concern is keeping economic drivers going,” she explained. While Decker said she understood the need for saving for future maintenance needs, she reasoned “the next five years are more critical to keep rates low.”

Joined by Stephen Prysunka over the phone, the Assembly was split 3-3 on the amendment, with Mayor David Jack casting the decisive fourth “no” vote. Putting the unamended motion to a vote directly afterward, they were similarly split 4-3 in favor of the new ordinance.

In other business, the Assembly postponed a decision on next year's budget, after Blake recommended holding one additional workshop before the state's June 28 deadline. Of two such sessions already held, he pointed out almost an entire workshop had been spent discussion health insurance options, with a number of questions on other items yet to answer. A meeting has been set for June 27 at 6 p.m. in City Hall.

The Assembly unanimously approved recommendations put forward by the Planning and Zoning Commission for updating ordinances to address licensed marijuana facilities in Wrangell. The compelling reason for the decision was commission chair Terri Henson's explanation the proposal would subject all such businesses to conditional zoning, putting business plans to the public hearing and review process.

“Everything is a conditional use,” Henson said. “In any area where it’s going to be allowed it’s still going to have a conditional use. So each one will be looked at.”

The city's clerk and attorney will work the recommendations into an ordinance form, after which it will return to Planning and Zoning for consideration and, if approved, to the Assembly for a final ruling.

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 12/03/2024 12:19